client's property is bound is next door and is bounded on two sides of the applicant's property
you can see their house and also they have a little shed in the back also so these two little
sheds back up to each other, and the property line is in between those two sheds. Is that
all correct, Ms. Lau? Yes, it is. Okay. I'm now going to show the board
the photos that we have in Exhibit B of our package earlier submitted.
Two photos of the front of your house, two photos of the back of your house. Here's the first one
of the rear of your house showing a very large rear deck and also a lot of windows on the rear
of your house. Turning slightly to the left, it shows a second rear deck that you have off the
back of your house. I think I counted on the back of your house 17 windows altogether. Turning
Turning around, looking back at the applicant's property, we see your little shed and his little shed.
And of course, as the board knows, the property line is in between those two sheds.
property line is in between those two sheds. Finally, we have a collage of views of three
Finally, we have a collection.
views looking out the back. They're similar and it's in a similar direction. You can see
the sheds in each of the pictures. And of course, the applicant shed would be removed
and the ADU, the proposed ADU, or the proposed new house would be sort of in its place much
wider, but in its place, this large tree would be taken down. Is all of that correct, Ms. Lau?
Thank you. Ms. Lau, is it correct that Mr. Lockhart has described
how he intends to use the proposed new building?
Yes, yes.
Yes. His exhibits in meetings and also his exhibits list eight activities that he would
use for the new house. And so I'm going to read them off, all eight of them. They're listed in
the applicant's statement, which is his exhibit four at pages three and four, and also at a later
part of his materials. And I'm just going to read off for the board the eight uses that he would
put this property to. One, a place for his mother, a New Hampshire resident, to stay during the
winters. Two, a place for his brother, an Arizona resident, to stay during the summers. Three, a
place for his girlfriend to play concert grand piano. Four, a place to stay for his girlfriend's
two daughters' families, one of which is a family of four who live in Manhattan. Five, a place for
his girlfriend to give piano lessons to her grandchildren. In other words, a place big enough
for two pianos. Six, a place for his own grandchildren to stay. Seven, if COVID or another
variant arrives, he wants it for more bedrooms. And eight, a place for a home office for his law
practice. So there's the first two. Here's the three through seven is on the next page. And then
in a later part of his materials here at number three, he mentions a home office space for his
law practice. Ms. Lau, with all this as background, I'll give you the floor for one minute to tell
the board why you were opposed to this project? Yes, I'm opposed for several reasons. First,
with all due respect, I believe it's unreasonable and inappropriate to build a new house at this
location. We live on Millman in a beautiful home with, as you showed, lots of rear windows and a
large rear deck in a quiet and peaceful setting. We spend a lot of time on our rear deck enjoying
that peace and quiet. And when we're there, we see a lot of greenery and we hear almost nothing.
It's into this setting that Mr. Lockhart wants to build a brand new house and have numerous
members of his extended family stay there in various times of the year. Well, you can imagine
our dismay first hearing and then reading that this new house would be for his mother,
his brother, his girlfriend practicing piano and giving piano lessons, a place to stay for his
girlfriend's two daughters' families for his own grandchildren, additional bedrooms,
there's another variant, and a home office. We would not just see this structure. We would hear
the activity, including the move-ins and the move-outs, the deliveries, the trash removal,
the maintenance, the repairs, and all the other things mentioned in Mr. Lockhart's materials.
and adding insult to injury the front door is on our side. Let me show the board just to remind
the board that here is the front door to this new house this new ADU and that would be facing
my client's property. Ms. Lau do you have a closing thought for the board? Yes members of the board
this new house in this location, we would not have the same level of peace and quiet that we
have now. And it would harm the enjoyment of our home and property. I appreciate very much your
time. Thank you, Ms. Lau. That's all the questions Carl has.
Thank you, Ms. Lau. That's all the questions. If Carl has cross-examination or any questions.
Thank you. Ms. Lau, I'm going to show you our Exhibit 28.
Let me stop my share here.
And are you familiar with that depiction that was prepared by our architect showing my client's property with the existing 1,800-square-foot inventory house, as well as the roughly 800-square-foot ADU, Accessory Dwelling Unit?
um i saw it okay and and the um second lot is your lot with your existing house
and uh your little storage space in the rear
uh sure i don't have the specific numbers but sure and uh do you know that your house was built
in the 1800s? I wasn't around, but yes, I think so. And it's not indicated as historic, is it?
No. And how many additions have been added to the original farmhouse that you live in?
I don't know. We moved in after all that. The listing said there was a jaw-dropping
timber family room. Does that sound familiar, as we're showing you our next exhibit, which is 29?
Do you have a timber family room? We have a timber family room. And is it jaw-dropping?
We like it. And it must be fairly large? It's a family room. All right. And you have a variety of
living spaces, your listing agreement says, I believe, that the house has five bedrooms
and two and a half baths. Is that correct? It has five bedrooms and two and a half baths.
And it's a 3,712 square foot home compared to the existing Venturi house of 1,800 square feet.
um i'll have to i don't know the specifics but you would agree that your home is much
larger than the venturi home on a much smaller lot we we bought this house yes as is now you
love the deck and in your letter you say that you spend a lot of time in the deck and it's
an enjoyable feature yes do you know that that deck was approved by a variance by the zoning board
no back in 2007 no and i'm going to show you that as our exhibit
44 uh and as we read it a variance was granted albeit to your former predecessor and title
for the erection of a sun deck with roof and stairs to grade located in the front
side and rear yards, along with two off-street parking slots in the rear yard. Now, do you have
two off-street parking spaces in the rear yard close to the rear property line between you and
Mr. Lockhart? Yes. And you'll see in the exhibit, you actually have a two-parking space lot
encroaching in the rear yard minimum depth because the required was 25 feet
and what was proposed was 15 feet.
Well, Mr. Premier, I object when you say encroaching.
You're showing approvals that apparently were granted years before my client bought the house.
She bought it as is.
So you're talking about, you know, somewhat, you're talking about the history of approvals of her house before she bought it.
And I'm going to sum up briefly.
This is zoning runs with the land.
And we'll just look at the photos on 44.
I'm sorry, on 34.
I just want to make sure that we understand that the deck runs along with the parking pad to the rear.
of the Lau house. And in effect, it's even though there's still a very generous setback
between the rear deck and the rear property line. This house is a much larger house on
a smaller lot. It's not historic, even though it was built in the 1800s. And I'm just asking
Mrs. Lau, or Miss Lau, if she's familiar with these conditions, and if this is a fair
if she's familiar with these conditions, and if this is a fair representation of her property.
I represent.
This photo was in the, I've seen this photo.
And you're aware of the many meetings with the Chestnut Hill Community Association
and their vote of support for this proposed variance?
I attended the RCO meetings.
And the Chestnut Hill Conservancy also supports it?
And you're aware that Councilwoman Bass submitted a letter of support?
And the Planning Commission also supports it? Are you aware of those things?
Yes. And are you also aware that part of this process includes generous landscaping between your property and Mr. Lockhart's property, also a deed restriction, so that this ADU, Accessory Dwelling Unit, will only be limited to members of the household of the principal house, whoever's living in the Venturi house?
You're aware that a deed restriction will be filed and that landscaping will be provided?
you're asking if she's aware that a deed restriction will be filed because
yes we're not aware that anything has been put in writing yet i'm just making sure she's aware
of the protections that the community association uh provided uh with regard to this application
well she's aware i would suggest i think the only thing we're aware of is what's in that letter
And that letter says that letter says what it says, and I don't think it's as as you've read it with all due respect.
And Miss Lau, have you read or seen the exhibits, including the comments and minutes from the Historic Commission regarding the Venturi House?
you're going to have to point them out were they were they in I don't know
well they were in the exhibit submitted did you review our exhibits that were submitted with this
hearing or have you ever seen the minutes of the historic commission I saw the minutes when they
were submitted, but I didn't look at them carefully. All right. Well, did you happen to
see the provision, and that's in our Exhibit 6, of Mr. McCubrey, who interestingly enough is both
on the commission and a former member of the Venturi architectural firm, said that this ADU
is appropriate as the house is very small and the ADU will allow a larger family to reside on the
property and for guests to be accommodated. Do you remember that when they approved the
uh ADU at the Historic Commission? I wasn't at the Historic Commission.
But do you remember reading the minutes? No. No. But you're aware through this hearing process
and through our exhibits and through what we're talking about that the Historic Commission has
approved along with the community this ADU in its current configuration and location.
But, Mr. Premier, I think with all due respect, the minutes speak for themselves.
I believe Mr. McCubrey also said that the issue of zoning is not before them and that that would be another matter.
So I'm just asking if Ms. Lau is familiar with what was said.
I have nothing further.
Mr. Premier, I think she said that she's not familiar with this.
That's fine. I won't believe her point. I have nothing further.
uh i already have redirect no i don't have any redirect i think we're fine um so my my closing
if you'd like to hear it is about nine and a half minutes fine why don't we do your closing
okay thank you i'll do it right now um mr chair vice chair and members of the zoning board
um there is no hardship this is a case about preference and convenience we don't fault the
applicant for wanting more space for his family members, his many family members, to stay when
they visit from Texas, from Arizona, from Manhattan, from New Hampshire, or room for two concert grand
pianos in a new freestanding house on his property. He wants a fourth and fifth bedroom, but their
absence is not a zoning hardship. The subject property contains a viable use, operating by right
under the zoning code. It's more than just viable. It has three bedrooms and two baths,
living room, fireplace, dining area, modern kitchen, a long driveway,
space for parking several cars, a beautiful lawn, and gardens. We've presented a lot of evidence
space for parking several cars, a beautiful lawn, and gardens. We've presented a lot.
about how this house was lived in by so many people. You've seen books from authors and other
architects and quotes from Mr. Venturi himself and from his wife and architectural partner,
all saying that the house was designed specifically for a person or a couple to age in place with a
live-in maid servant, a home health aide, or nurse. An esteemed professor of American art with a focus
on modern architecture, explained in her book that, quote, the house was designed to be lived
in comfortably by more than one person, and at various times, Vanna, the architect's mother,
shared it with her caretakers, with her son until his marriage, with her son and daughter-in-law for
a period after their marriage, with an architecture student, and finally at the very end with a live-in
nurse. You've seen numerous photographs of the beautiful interior of the house. You've seen
materials that contain interviews and descriptions about living in the house. It has served three
households continuously over the past 58 years. It was used by the Venturis for nine years,
by the Hughes for 43 years, and then by the applicant for six years and counting.
In total, it has been used in compliance with the zoning code for 58 years. It was built by right.
There are no violations on the property. The applicant loves living there. When he became an
empty nester in his previous house, which required him to use stairs, he looked around for a house
that was just right for him. As you'll recall from the evidence, he looked at a house that was smaller
than the Venturi house, but he wanted something bigger. And so in 2016, he bought 8330 Millman
Street, a house that he always admired. Soon after, when it was proposed for historic designation,
he stated to the city that he agreed with the proposed historic designation, and he has
enjoyed living there. He entertains there. He holds meetings there. He owns it outright with
no mortgage. He said repeatedly and continuously that he intends to stay there until his final
days. Let's discuss the law for a moment. The applicant is asking permission to introduce a use
that is prohibited everywhere in the city of Philadelphia. He's proposing a new construction
ADU. And that, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, is not allowed under the zoning code
anywhere in Philadelphia. And that's not for lack of debate. Advocates of density, people in academia,
journalism even some in the planning commission have pushed for the city to be more liberal
with adus but city council decided otherwise i'll note that we we don't that the we look at
the comprehensive plan and we've attached excerpts in our exhibits there may be i don't we don't
actually see it a recommendation for adus and low density neighborhoods but if there is it was just
a recommendation and it was not agreed to by the by city council there's no absolute right to have
an adu and city council decided in the zoning code just three years ago that an adu can only
go inside certain buildings in some parts of the city or inside any garage that already existed
as of 2012. But the law is clear that new construction ADUs are not allowed anywhere.
It's not a question of where on the property you want to put it. The use is not allowed in
Philadelphia. It's not listed in the code. It's not a recognized use. And with all due respect,
we do not believe it would be for the zoning board to reverse what city council recently enacted
into law just three years ago in 2020. The applicant is seeking a use variance which requires
the highest amount of proof under the law including a clear demonstration of hardship
and under our zoning code to demonstrate a hardship the zoning board has to make certain
findings including that there is quote-unquote no possibility that the property as it presently
exists can be used in compliance with the zoning code. With all due respect, we don't think that
finding can be made on the evidence in this record. But it's not just our zoning codes. There are tons
of case law on this point, and I'm going to mention one of them. In 1996, our state Supreme Court
settled the precise question before you in the Larson case, and I quote two sentences from the
court's opinion. Quote, the mere desire to provide more room for a family member's enjoyment
fails to constitute the type of unnecessary hardship required by the law of this commonwealth.
The court also said variances are meant to avoid unnecessary hardships.
variances are meant to avoid unnecessary hardships. The granting of relief cannot be done
simply to accommodate the changing needs of a growing family. Again, the court said a variance
cannot be granted simply to accommodate the changing needs of a growing family.
Members of the board, the principle that a variance should not be granted when the applicant
can already make a viable use of the property as zoned is a bedrock principle of Pennsylvania
zoning law. It's been applied in case after case, including cases in Philadelphia. The law says that
the hardship can't be about the person, and that's what we have here. The claimed hardship is
impermissibly about the person. Here, the applicant now wants his property to be the focal point
of his extended family, the place where everyone comes to stay, a family compound. That's not a